The Greatest Trick

Since I haven’t been to the cinema this weekend, I thought I’d break from tradition and post reviews of three classics: the original Star Wars trilogy. Frankly, I am surprised Mark hasn’t put something on these up already.

What can be said about Star Wars that hasn’t already been said elsewhere?

For a start, on its arrival in 1977, it was light years ahead of its time. It is a film from which cinema history can literally be divided into two epochs, kind of like BC and AD. Pre-Star Wars cinema was a very different medium. Post Star Wars, studios became ever more reliant on big blockbusters to remain afloat. This has led to some truly brain dead films and, as Peter Bogdanovitch described the `juvenilisation’ of cinema. The success of Star Wars was a two-edged sword. Its fair to say without it there would have been no Alien, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET, Terminator, Jurassic Park, Matrix and Lord of the Rings films. On the other hand there would also have been no Judge Dredd, Lost in Space, Planet of the Apes remake and other assorted drivel that turns up every summer clogging up the multiplexes.

Star Wars (or if you’re going to be a purist, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope although the subtitle was only added in the 1981 reissue) thankfully, belongs firmly in the former category. If its legacy means we have to suffer second rate imitators from time to time, I believe it’s a small price to pay for such a magnificent film. Star Wars is an unmitigated thrill ride - a heroic, dynamic rush of pure adrenaline that has been known to make grown adults degenerate into thrill-happy eight year olds.

As I have argued many times, Star Wars is not science fiction in the purest sense of the word. It is much better described by writer/director George Lucas as `space fantasy’. It borrows elements from fairy tales ranging from The Wizard of Oz to The Lord of the Rings. It also is very derivative of classic westerns (such as The Searchers) as well as Samurai films like Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress. What George Lucas did was take these elements and stick them in outer space in a way no one had done since the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s. He then threw in the most groundbreaking special effects revolution of all time and this is what he ended up with.

The story is comparatively simple. Young farm boy Luke Skywalker lives with his boring Uncle and Aunt on the desert planet Tatooine longing to follow in his dead father’s heroic footsteps. He gets the opportunity when two droids show up carrying a message from a Princess who has been imprisoned by the evil Darth Vader. Luke teams up with space pirate Han Solo, his `walking carpet’ sidekick Chewbacca, and his mentor Ben Kenobi (who is a former Jedi knight guided by the mysterious `Force’) to rescue her.

The much-maligned acting of Mark Hamill as Luke is actually often so bad its good, particularly in the Death Star scenes. He makes a very appealing naïve hero. Harrison Ford’s career was launched on the back of his performance as dashing rogue Han Solo, and Carrie Fisher’s witty performance as Princess Leia portrays her as anything but a damsel in distress. Elsewhere the droids C3PO and R2 D2 provide superb comic relief. The banter between all the heroes is extremely funny, a factor largely (but not entirely) lacking from the current, more sombre prequels. Gravitas is added with the scenes between Ben Kenobi (the superb Alec Guinness) and the mysterious and evil Darth Vader (wonderfully voiced by James Earl Jones). Vader is, in my opinion, the single best screen villain in cinema history. His frightening and dark presence (helped by his menacing breathing and mask) gave children everywhere nightmares. Vader’s character is not developed a huge amount in this film, but in the subsequent installments he proves the most interesting character in the entire Star Wars saga. The other villain worthy of special mention is Peter Cushings’ brilliantly nasty Grand Moff Tarkin, the arrogant governor of the Death Star.

The special effects, as I’ve already mentioned, were light years ahead of their time in 1977. In my opinion nothing equalled Star Wars effects wise until 1993’s Jurassic Park. Even now, the effects still look fantastic. From the unforgettable opening shot to the final exhilarating space battle, the film is a triumph. The Death Star battle remains the best space dogfight ever put on film. Even though we’ve all seen it hundreds of times, as the pilots are picked off one by one until only Luke remains we get closer and closer to the edge of our seats. As, the odds are piled up against our hero, Han Solo’s last minute intervention and Luke’s triumph is, in my opinion, the second most exhilarating scene in cinema history (after the flying bike scene in ET).

The production design, costumes and look of the film are terrific (with Imperial greys, whites and blacks contrasting nicely to our more colourful heroes). The outfits spawned millions of nerds wanting to buy full Stormtrooper regalia for ludicrous prices. Also, the editing and ground breaking sound effects are all nothing short of landmark cinema (eg, the breathless space battles and the lightsabres respectively). Also, John Williams’ thundering music score is magnificent. The staggeringly epic main theme, the Luke Skywalker theme, the Leia theme and many others have all become touchstones for other composers to imitate.

The special edition released in 1997 made some changes to effects shots (which were OK changes on the whole) and added a new, unnecessary scene with Jabba the Hutt. Nevertheless, it doesn’t really matter which version you see, the effect is the same.

The spiritual overtones in Star Wars are fascinating. From the Christ allegory of Kenobi to Luke’s choosing to have faith in `the Force’ rather than trust his computer, this film is chock full of interesting interpretations about God, the Universe, and the triumph of faith, love and courage over faceless technology. Star Wars is a reassuring film. That more than anything I believe accounts for its success. People may be cynical, but underneath they desperately want to believe in absolute good and absolute evil.

That’s why it’s as timeless today as it was in 1977.

Simon Dillon, 2003.

The general consensus among fans and critics says The Empire Strikes Back is the finest Star Wars film. I would have to agree. It’s darker, funnier and more dramatic than the first film. Although not a sequel in the strictest sense of the word, it belongs to an elite club of `even-better-than-the-original’ films along with The Godfather part II and Toy Story 2.

The Empire Strikes Back in the hands of studio bosses would probably have been a straight rehash of the original. Thankfully, George Lucas had complete financial and creative control, bringing in director Irvin Kershner and screenwriters Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett (who died before the film was finished) to help realise his vision. These collaborators deserve as much credit as Lucas himself for the unmitigated masterpiece that resulted.

The Empire Strikes Back picks up the story again as the Rebel Alliance are hiding from the evil Empire on snow planet Hoth. Here we are re-introduced to our heroes Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia and droids C3PO and R2 D2. Luke is attacked by a snow monster (a kind of abominable snowman called the `Hoth Wampa’). He defeats the creature but is lost in the icy night and begins to freeze to death. In his delirium, Luke sees a vision of his dead mentor Obi Wan Kenobi instructing him to find Jedi Master Yoda and train as a Jedi.

At the same time, romance is brewing between Han Solo and Princess Leia, although they both refuse to admit it. Han intends to leave Hoth with co-pilot Chewbacca and pay off his debt to Jabba the Hutt before his bounty hunters catch up with him. However, Han’s departure is delayed by rescuing Luke.

Unfortunately, It doesn’t take long for the Empire, under the leadership of Darth Vader to find the Rebels. Vader has suddenly become obsessed with tracking down Luke Skywalker and turning him to the dark side of the Force. The Rebels are attacked (in a brilliant battle sequence with huge walking machines called AT ATs) and our heroes take separate paths for the remainder of the film. Han, Leia, Chewbacca and C3PO flee Imperial forces through space, and Luke seeks Jedi Master Yoda to be instructed in the Force and become a Jedi.

Several things about this film are superior to any other film in the Star Wars canon. For a start, the acting is never better than here (largely thanks to Kershner). Even Mark Hamill is good and the romantic banter between Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher is brilliantly performed, recalling the classic Hollywood screwball comedies of the 1930s and 40s (`Would it help if I got out and pushed?’) There are some great new characters, such as Yoda (Frank Oz), the best puppet character in film history with the possible exception of ET, and Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams), a double-dealing rogue from Han’s past. Despite having very little screen time, bounty hunter Boba Fett (Jeremy Buloch), became a favourite among fans, and we even get our first glimpse of the evil Emperor (played here by Clive Revill, not Ian McDiarmid).

The planets visited are more interesting than in any of the other films. Cloud city is wonderful (especially the carbon freeze chamber), Dagobah is an appropriately gloomy swamp, and the Hoth wastelands are spectacular. The production design is absolutely first rate. Also, John Williams music is at its best here, with fantastic new themes including one for Yoda, a great love theme, and the stunning Imperial march (or Darth Vader theme).

Needless to say, the editing, cinematography, sound and special effects are all wonderful (particularly in the asteroid chase). The witty screenplay never wastes a second and is full understated emotion, particularly in the tearful climax to Han and Leia’s romance. Is this really the end of Han Solo? In 1980 audiences had to wait three painful years to find out. Now thankfully, we can simply pull out our VHS of Return of the Jedi. By the way, this one also has the best lightsabre duel in the entire saga.

Which brings us to the ending. The greatest thing about The Empire Strikes Back is how the plot is propelled, by a brilliant and now legendary twist, to its downbeat conclusion. The dark ending is crucial because it creates a huge sense of uncertainty for the final film. Will good really triumph over evil? This story is great because it’s more complex than just good versus bad. Luke not only has to overcome the evil Empire but the evil in himself. It’s about resisting temptation, even to the potential cost of ones life.

A magnificent film.

Simon Dillon, 2003.

Return of the Jedi is, in my opinion, a superb and fitting finale to the epic Star Wars saga.

Picking up where The Empire Strikes Back left off, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Lando Calrissian, Chewbacca, C3PO and R2 D2 all set off to rescue carbon frozen Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt. Meanwhile, the Emperor and Darth Vader are secretly constructing a new Death Star more powerful than the first, aiming to destroy the Rebel Alliance once and for all.

Widely regarded as the weakest of the original trilogy, the criticisms levelled at this film over the years are deeply unfair. I will now attempt to counter these criticisms one by one. First, some say the film isn’t dark enough and that Han Solo should have been killed off (as apparently he did in an earlier draft). This would be ludicrous as the film already has enough tragedy to balance the ultimate triumph over the Empire. Killing Han Solo would have been wrong, plain and simple, especially after all the trouble our heroes go through to rescue him in the first act. As for the film not being dark enough, the Luke/Vader/Emperor confrontation has some of the most intense and emotionally satisfying drama in any Star Wars film to contrast with the films brighter moments.

Secondly, how much one enjoys Return of the Jedi depends on ones stance on Ewoks. Depending on whom you speak to, they are either annoying teddy bears or instrumental in underlining the point of the entire story. I take the latter view. The Ewoks symbolise the whole `David and Goliath’ aspect of the story - ie the triumph of courage, imagination, and primitive technology over colossal technologically advanced evil. Leaving that aside, the Ewoks are fun for goodness sake! The slapstick comedy (such as the logs smashing the Imperial scout walkers) is brilliantly done. What’s more, the Endor battle has just enough of an edge to it to let you know its serious (for instance, there’s a small and wonderfully understated moment where an Ewok mourns a dead friend killed by laser fire).

The space battles are the best ever put on film. The Death Star battle in A New Hope remains better dramatically, but effects-wise these are unsurpassed. Considering it was all done with models and opticals they are nothing less than a staggering achievement. Also, the speeder bike chase (making great use of bluescreen) remains as exhilarating as ever. Compare it with, say, the chase through the city in Judge Dredd and it becomes clear this has never been equalled, even 20 years later.

The performances are all solid (if unremarkable). There are some lazy moments, such as the bridge scene where Luke tells Leia her true identity. Really that scene should have been played far more dramatically. The film makes up for it instantly though, by following with a brilliant scene with Vader and Luke where Luke tells Vader `his father is truly dead’. In that moment where Vader is left alone with his thoughts, you sense the turmoil going on inside of him, despite the mask.

In fact, Darth Vader (voiced superbly by James Earl Jones) emerges as the best character. (SPOILER WARNING AHEAD FOR THOSE POOR DEPRIVED SOULS WHO HAVEN’T SEEN IT) - His ultimate redemption as he turns the tables on the Emperor remain as unexpected and exhilarating as ever. This is, unquestionably, the most powerful and moving moment in the entire saga - especially in the poignant and wonderfully understated final scene between Luke and Vader (`just once let me look on you with my own eyes.’).

The 1997 special edition is actually my preferred version of the film, as it expands on the galaxy wide celebrations at the fall of the Empire, instead of reducing it to an Ewok night on the town. The music has also been changed here to something more appropriate. Instead of moving from Vader’s melancholic funeral pyre right into the Ewok bash, the audience sees many other planets celebrate, including the Imperial capital Coruscant where the Emperor’s statue is torn down.

All in all, a brilliant ending, unless you don’t like Ewoks, in which case its merely satisfactory.

Simon Dillon, 2003.

First, for the Christians among you, let me state my position on the Harry Potter phenomena. Unlike several of my more right-wing brethren, I do not believe Harry Potter to be some kind of insidious evil brain-washing our children into becoming witches. Obviously, for a final verdict one must wait until the last book, but it is clearly preposterous to claim that the spells in the books are real or that JK Rowling is a witch. I do not believe the stories contained within the books are dangerous in themselves.

What I do find of concern is Harry Potter related media (eg fan websites containing links to genuinely occult material). Therefore, wise parenting is vital. Refusing to let children read Harry Potter is only going to increase their curiosity and it is far better to read and discuss it with them, explaining that the witchcraft in these stories is a plot device which bears no resemblance to the real life witchcraft that must be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, I make no apology for being a fan of the Harry Potter novels. I refuse to subscribe to the current snobby “it’s-popular-therefore-its-crap” backlash, and remain very pleased that it has sparked a revival in fantasy fiction from other equally gifted novelists. The films however, have been a different story. Parts one to three suffered from pedestrian performances, sidelining of critical characters (especially Snape) and dull screenplays that remained far too reverent of the source material. They generally had the feel of a cynical franchise not unlike the James Bond films. That’s not to say they’re terrible, but the books are so much better.

As an adaptation, Goblet of Fire is something of an improvement, but still an infuriatingly mixed bag. If you’re unfamiliar with the story you will get hopelessly lost in which case I suggest don’t bother, and read the books instead. If however you have read the books and are curious, then you will at the very least be entertained.

The story concerns Harry Potter becoming an unwitting participant in a dangerous magical tournament, and the return to power of his arch nemesis Lord Voldemort. In the course of their year at Hogwarts, not only do Harry and his friends have to deal with dragons but also raging teenage hormones. Some incidents involving the latter provide amiable light relief in what is the darkest of Rowling’s stories to date.

Mike Newell is the first British director to helm the franchise and has sensibly opted for brevity. If you’re expecting to see the Dursleys, Mrs Weasley, House Elves, Blast-Ended Skrewts or that giant spider in the maze you will be disappointed. However, I felt their exclusion was a bonus, enabling the story to focus more on the tournament. The convoluted Barty Crouch Junior subplot was also wisely sidelined in a way that left room for the tragedy of the ending to work at least semi-successfully (but nowhere near as powerfully as in the book).

Despite a decently creepy opening, my main criticism remains Steven Kloves screenplay which treats the book as if it were the Bible, consistently failing to reinvent for the screen. On the rare occasions when he does cut loose, such as with Harry’s dragon confrontation, he is hugely successful. It’s a shame there wasn’t more such innovation as it gives a tantalising hint as to what the Potter franchise could have been.

Performance wise the three leads are so-so but getting better all the time. Ralph Fiennes makes Voldemort a fine menacing villain. Michael Gambon’s Dumbledore isn’t entirely how I’d imagined him, but at least he gets a decent amount of screen time, unlike poor old Snape (the ever excellent Alan Rickman) who is by far the most complex and interesting character in the books. Also of note is David Tennant’s manic Barty Crouch Junior, showing in his brief scenes he could prove an interesting choice for the role of Doctor Who.

On the technical side, the special effects are excellent, the locations (digital and real) are breathtakingly rendered and Patrick Doyle’s music score isn’t bad, though not a patch on John Williams work which was the one outstanding feature of the previous three.

In summary, if you’re a fan you’ll enjoy it, but read the book first. If you’re not a fan steer clear. And if you’re one of those Christians who believes Harry Potter is the spawn of Satan, might I suggest getting hot under your dog-collar about Phillip Pullman’s superb but spiritually abhorrent His Dark Materials trilogy instead. Once you read it you will discover it is of infinitely greater concern.

Simon Dillon, November 2005

Here’s a film we have been watching a lot recently, mainly due to our 2-year-old’s fascination with it. We are proud to say that we more or less imposed this on him, because we were desperate for him to watch something different to Finding Nemo, and we knew it was great. Re-discovering it was a true joy, and reading Simon’s review of The Incredibles made us realise how we really need to blog our thoughts on Brad Bird’s earlier, just as brilliant work.

Hogarth Hughes is an average boy living in 1950s Maine, USA: fascinated with horror movies on TV, satellites and the wonders of nature. Into his world crashes a metal-eating, child-like giant from outer space, who doesn’t know why he’s on earth and is just trying to make sense of his surroundings. Hogarth befriends him, teaches him some basic words and why it’s a bad idea to eat train tracks, finds him a home at a scrap yard with the local beatnik, and adopts him as friend and father figure in the absence of a natural one. At the same time a paranoid government agent, Kent Mansley, having heard of the potential threat to national security, has descended on the town with ego in tow to establish all the details and make sure he has grounds to get the army there in full force to blow the red menace to kingdom come. Hogarth must do all he can to protect his new friend from the ‘duck and cover’ generation.

Based on the book by Ted Hughes (which, by the way, I remember being read by Tom Baker on Jackanory many years ago and haven’t really come across it since), this movie is a delight from beginning to end, and as Simon pointed out in his Incredibles review, seems to have been missed and/or underrated by critics everywhere. We saw it for the first time at the cinema, and I remember being fascinated by the animation for at least the first 20 minutes of the film. The very stylised mix of standard ink and paint animation and CGI that evokes 1950s comic books and brings a fluidity of movement, especially to the giant himself, is quite beautiful to watch.

Then you notice that the characters, who though stereotypical in some cases, are very well-realised: Hogarth’s mother, voiced by Jennifer Aniston, is a loving parent dealing the best she can with her son’s flighty tendencies and propensity for wild stories, and just trying to provide for him. Dean McCoppin, the beatnik scrap dealer/artist (Harry Connick Jr), gets some of the best comic moments (”Over here, this is scrap. Over here, this is Art. If you have to eat one, eat the scrap. What you currently have IN YOUR MOUTH is Art!”). And Vin Diesel as the giant, even though his lines are minimal and his voice altered beyond recognition, manages to inject humanity into a load of nuts and bolts. The giant’s discovery of death as a concept is one of the most touching scenes in the film, and lots of the credit has to go to Diesel and the animators working in a brilliant partnership.

What this film does to superb effect is mix high and low comedy, historical and political allegory, explosive and exciting action and emotional content that almost anybody can relate to. Perfect for kids, although you should watch with them the first time around, and plenty to keep adults of all ages engaged, not just those who have to endure animated movies because of their kids.

Heidi adds:
Yep, this movie is a firm favourite of ours. I still love it despite the ridiculous number of times I’ve been subjected to it- which I think is a good enough recommendation in itself (especially as I found the book supremely dull as a child.) I’m very fussy when it comes to kids films, and I have very exacting standards when it comes to the overall themes, as well as that good old thorny issue of violence. This movie says a lot more than ‘you are who you choose to be’ and works on a great many more layers than your average family movie. I would recommend you watch it whether you have kids or not, but I would certainly recommend it to families because it has so many great things to say. As Mark mentioned there’s some really brilliantly done stuff about death (”It’s bad to kill, it’s not bad to die.”) Hearing the concept of souls living on from the mouth of a child feels really straightforward and really profound at the same time. You even get a good old-fashioned Christ allegory for good measure!
My only quibble is that there are 2 or 3 instances of blasphemy, which I detest in kids films. However, there’s a great scene where Hogarth covers himself by starting a very involved and hilarious prayer, which almost redeems it!
Yes, there should be more movies about killer robots that are as funny, moral and downright touching as this.

I recieved this piece of monumental sarcasm from my good friend Charles Storrar and thought it was too good not to blog. Hopefully Mark won’t mind.

Doom and Doomer:

If you see one movie about a rag tag space SWAT team despatched to investigate something gone horribly wrong at a science facility, possibly involving genetic experiments this year, make sure it’s DOOM. As ever this classic conceit is fresh and original and this offering provides a crisp new take. And as ever sadly the question must be asked, given the slew in the 90s of such well-crafted and well-received releases as Super Mario Bros, Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, why on earth has it taken Hollywood so long to make more movies based on computer games?

The Rock puts in his most convincing performance since 2004’s critically acclaimed, or at least acclaimed critically (What the hell did you rent that for?) Walking Tall. Make no mistake – this man’s eyeballs can act. Their dynamic screen presence alone more than makes up for any supposed trifling inadequacies in the Rock’s other thespian credentials. How Brendan Gleason somehow fluked the part of Moody in Goblet of Fire is anyone’s guess. The Rock for goodness’ sake has not one Mad Eye but two! – Either of which would have excelled in the role. Perhaps he was deemed to be over qualified.

Karl Urban’s portrayal of the brooding Reaper meanwhile demonstrates how his master class in moral fortitude and conflicting loyalties as Eomer in The Two Towers were clearly a mere stepping stone to this similar but much greater role, fuller and more mythic than anything within Tolkien’s limited creative powers.

The skilful handling by the director of some of the story’s trickier points is also worthy of note. For example the fact that of the eighty or so scientists and civilians (including children) the team has been sent to rescue, not one of them escapes being mutilated, eaten and/or turned into zombies – could potentially be problematic. But this difficult issue is brilliantly resolved by having the viewer deeply and genuinely not care about them. Furthermore the inevitable but often unconvincing sciencey explanation bit when it comes, delivered here by that-girl-what’s-her-name-from-the-last-Bond-movie-quite-pretty-but-eyes-a-bit-bulgy in this case is well researched and believable (something about chromosomes?) Other questions are really too straightforward to warrant serious response – we know that scientists are a bit funny and not like the rest of us, so of course they would build their research facility with mazes of dark corridors, sewers and seemingly large and complex areas with only one small airlock in or out. I am embarrassed to even have mentioned it.

But let us not forget the essential humanity of this film, which for this viewer was embodied in the moment near the end when one creature about to be blown up by a proximity mine in the final second realises his plight and performs a comedy double take. In that instant this vile corruption, facing his imminent transport to that Undiscovered Country which we all must undergo, becomes as frightened and vulnerable as a little child.

Great credit must go to the director (whose name I must confess escapes me, anyway I hadn’t heard of him) and his production team for their masterful use of cliché throughout. Everything - every line, reaction, pause, fake shock, real shock, discovery of the truth of what-the-hell’s-really-been-going-on-around-here-anyway to final denouement is so well observed and executed that it is difficult to know if we have even seen this film before or not. Even the noble tradition established in the Alien/Predator franchise of having a black crewmember ill advisedly take on the monster mano a mano in unarmed combat is reprised to good and welcome effect. To create something so artfully contrived that it can slip so easily, indeed barely unnoticed, into its viewer’s consciousness must surely be the work of a master filmmaker.

This is the second feature from Fernando Meirelles, who also directed the superb but monumentally distressing City of God (which I am very glad to have seen but nothing could possibly induce me to watch it again).

However, The Constant Gardener is a film I would happily give a second viewing, primarily for Ralph Fiennes mesmerising, brilliant performance (every bit as good as he was in The English Patient or even Schindler’s List). Here he is understated but emotionally devastating as mild-mannered British diplomat Justin Quayle whose aid worker wife Tessa (Rachel Weisz) is found murdered in mysterious circumstances during a trip to Kenya.

It is here, from the opening scene of the film, that Fiennes arrests the attention. As he is told of his wife’s death, his face hardly moves, but his eyes immediately show that his entire world has fallen apart, an event that propels him on a self-destructive journey to learn the truth about why she was killed. This journey eventually uncovers a conspiracy involving pharmaceutical companies in cahoots with the British government to test prototype drugs on Africans in return for aid.

It’s a gripping tale, but one told at a deliberate, measured pace which I daresay will bore those among you who like their thrillers to have car chases every five minutes. On the other hand, if you are prepared to stick with it, this is a slow burning but immensely rewarding, intelligent and frighteningly plausible story. It’s based on a John Le Carre book which I have never read (he’s not a novelist that generally makes my must read list) so I cannot compare it to the source material. However Meirelles has created a fine film regardless; beautifully shot contrasting the colour and chaos of Africa with the cold, clinical greys of Britain and Europe.

My single criticism is that it would have been nice to see the US as well as the UK implicated in the (admittedly fictitious) conspiracy as I think it would have made the story even more believable. And of course, I must add the regulation cautions for bad language, some violence, sex and nudity (none of it offensively gratuitous).

Simon Dillon, November 2005.

Any film buff has his or her favourite Terry Gilliam film and typically, they make highbrow choices like Brazil or Twelve Monkeys (if they pick the latter, a really hardcore cineaste will also excitedly inform you it isn’t nearly as good as avant-garde French classic La Jetee on which it is based). Both the afore-mentioned are fine pictures to be sure, but neither is my favourite. To date, Time Bandits gets that vote; a hugely underrated movie which, as the director himself put it was “intelligent enough for children and exciting enough for adults.” It also has the cruellest ending to a children’s film I have ever seen.

Which brings me neatly to The Brothers Grimm. Cruelty is certainly evident in spades in this Gilliam’s latest, most commercial project to date. For kids it is a very dark, scary experience, with bad dreams guaranteed (hence the 12A certificate). It’s been slated by many critics and bombed at the US box office (no surprise there). However, despite this, I have to confess to thoroughly enjoying it. It has much the same feel as Time Bandits and if that’s your idea of a good time it comes highly recommended.

During the Napoleonic war, the Brothers Grimm are shown to be con artists who went from town to town in French occupied Germany exploiting superstitious fears of ghosts and witches and performing staged exorcisms and the like against demonic creatures that were really their assistants in disguise. However, soon they come across a town whose children have been disappearing into the forest and the brothers find themselves propelled into a nightmarish fairy tale with a genuine witch to defeat.

It’s an amusing notion, though not entirely original. Peter Jackson’s The Frighteners pulled a similar trick in 1997. Heath Ledger and Matt Damon give fine comic turns as the brothers, but there are some duff support roles, most notably from Jonathan Pryce as an unbalanced general with a ridiculous French accent (not that I ever get tired of French villains). The ending is somewhat muddled, and the whole thing has a faintly anti-Christian undercurrent.

Nevertheless, Gilliam directs with considerable flair. There are some extremely arresting scenes (such as a spider web spewing horse that swallows a child) and it all looks very beautiful, despite the occasional presence of dodgy computer effects. To reiterate, if this is your “bag” then it’s well worth a look. Plus for anyone who dislikes cats (like me), there is a hilariously sick moment where…actually, its too good to spoil.

Simon Dillon, November 2005.